Re: re Partch

Excuse me, Parch hasn't been boiled down or reduced to 43 tones per
octave, Mr. Elitist. This is a post by one person asking about alternative
instruments and info on them. That's it. And why the doubt
on checking out suggested instruments? I use what will work and I will
check them out, thanks. And no one needs to hear more on this in the near
future. It was just a question.

On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, John Chalmers wrote:

> I got this reply to the posting of your request on the Alternative
> Tuning list:
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 01:05:59 -0000
> From: "Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>" <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>
> Subject: Re: Someone wants Partch 43 tone instruments.
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, John Chalmers <JHCHALMERS@U...> wrote:
> > Looking to outfit a new band with partchlike instruments 43 pads per
> > unit
>
> Yep, that is what it has boiled down to in the new millenium: Partch is
> reduced to the number 43, which he always hated...
>
> More on this in the near future.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
> (but seriously, John, they should check out either the MalletKat or
> Marimba
> Lumina, though I doubt they will...)
>

Hey Mr. Mmelnick!

Look, one of the very frustrating things about ASCII communication is how difficult it is to convey a tone of a message. It is quite possible I read a little into John's posting of your note, and you certainly read more negativity into what I posted then I intended! Let me try to clear the air a bit...

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, mmelnick <spliffrd@i...> wrote:
> Excuse me, Parch hasn't been boiled down or reduced to 43 tones per
> octave, Mr. Elitist.

That was a generalist statement by me, following a number of threads that centered on "Partch = 43" (I'm assuming your 'Parch' is a typo). So it wasn't singling you out (read below) but following a trend of the last couple of decades of seeing Partch's work as nothing more than 43-tones to an octave in the form of a diamond. That is certainly the theoretical JI fabric of his compositions, but it isn't what he is really 'about'.

That said, 43 pad instruments wouldn't do justice to his works either, as all of his instruments used subsets and supersets of the scale, so you'd need setups with either more or less pads (and, in the days of electronics we're in, some problems could easily be worked around with patch/setup switching, etc. Outside of the Diamond Marimba, he didn't have a single '43 pad' instrument.

And yet I am thinking you were just using '43' as a convenient signpost, so I shouldn't have necessarily jumped on it. Hope I've made my thoughts more clear...

> This is a post by one person asking about alternative
> instruments and info on them. That's it.

Sure, I understand that.

> And why the doubt on checking out suggested instruments? I use
> what will work and I will check them out, thanks.

Checking them out in a really serious manner, such as getting a hold of one and seeing if it works, that's what I meant. Doubting only on the Marimba Lumina, really: it is beautiful, but costs an astronomical amount! Maybe MalletKats would work for you, but they aren't cheap either; I have seen them used effectively for a wide range of musics, and sounds like they would definitely be a possibility for you.

> And no one needs to hear more on this in the near future.
> It was just a question.

nononono. I hope you *do* respond back if you find something you like, and I'm sorry you felt caught in the cross-hairs of a musico-philosophical diatribe.

OTOH, in some areas of Partch I'm pretty picky. Just like Harry.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@A...>"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, mmelnick <spliffrd@i...> wrote:
> > Excuse me, Parch hasn't been boiled down or reduced to 43 tones
per
> > octave, Mr. Elitist.
>
> That was a generalist statement by me, following a number of
>threads that centered on "Partch = 43" (I'm assuming your 'Parch'
>is a typo). So it wasn't singling you out (read below) but following
>a trend of the last couple of decades of seeing Partch's work as
>nothing more than 43-tones to an octave in the form of a diamond.

the partch diamond has 29 tones per octave.

>That is certainly the theoretical JI fabric of his compositions, but
>it isn't what he is really 'about'.

who said it was? partch devoted a huge amount of work to developing
his tuning system, though, so isn't it natural that people should
take an interest to it?

> Outside of the Diamond Marimba, he didn't have a single '43 pad'
>instrument.

the diamond marimba, of course, is 29-tone.

> OTOH, in some areas of Partch I'm pretty picky. Just like Harry.

so there. i can be picky about partch too (as you well know)!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@A...>"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> That was a generalist statement by me, following a number of
>threads that centered on "Partch = 43"

where were these threads?

>So it wasn't singling you out (read below) but following a trend of
>the last couple of decades of seeing Partch's work as nothing more
>than 43-tones to an octave in the form of a diamond.

where do i find this "trend"? i haven't seen any of it.